E Pluribus Unum vs. The UNTIED States of America

So here’s my question: If E Pluribus Unum means “from many, one” what would “from many, many” be? E Pluribus Pluribum? My memory of high school Latin fails me and I can’t answer a simple question about declension anymore. My Latin I teacher, Father Cletus Wagner (Latin insider joke: we called him ‘Cletus, -a, -um’) would never forgive me for this lapse. My Latin II teacher, a homicidal maniac named Father Walschinsky, couldn’t beat the answer out of me. (At least not now he couldn’t. He has to be 90-something if he’s still alive. He once punched my face repeatedly, splitting my lip and loosening a tooth. I wonder if I could visit him in his nursing home. “Hi Father, remember me, you psychotic thug? How did you ever get put in charge of young minds!? Here, let me adjust your pillow for you. On your FACE!”).

I digress. Here’s another Latin question: Did Ceasar’s Gallic wars start out Alles Gallia est divisa in tres partes, or was it ‘Gallium.’ The memory is blurry (probably from that beating) and it’s not worth the visit to Wikipedia to find out. Either way, France was divided into three parts, and Ceasar thought it was important to note it. So did Father Walschinsky. They may have punctuated their lessons differently, but it seems they agreed that the lesson, whatever it was, was more enduring when spoken in Latin.

Here’s why I’m asking about popular and obscure Latin phrases and the policies they represent – the Taxed Enough Already crowd is taking more of the stage in national politics. They demand lower taxes, seem to hate federal programs, and believe in  ‘accountability and personal responsibility.’  More than anything, they believe in states’ rights, limited federal spending, and a few selected constitutional provisions. So are we the United States or the Untied States? Unum or Divisa? Are we a country or just a collection of states?

It has me thinking about troubles in other states and asking the bigger John Galt question: What’s in it for me? Why should I care about other states? Are we really required to care? Am I really connected in any way to Idaho? I don’t know what it means to miss New Orleans – I’ve never been there. Why should I care if it washes out to sea or blackens with oil? I’m not a huge fan of country music either but the songs I do enjoy are available on iTunes, so Nashville can swim for it. I have my own memories of Elvis so if only a stream of bubbles tells me where Graceland used to be, I can live with that. Border jumping is mostly a problem for border states. We border New Jersey, which, while not ideal, still has a river and $4 tolls to divide us.

My home state, Pennsylvania, has been called “two major cities at either end of the state, with Alabama in between.” The state legislature likes to punish the big cities. The big cities wonder what, besides the Turnpike, connects them with the rural areas. But we are one state, and we find ways to strike a balance. Isn’t that enough of a concession?

Election years tend to revive our grade school instinct to to drag out the crayons and color a state either red or blue. But if they are to be truly separated, how about coloring them red and green? As in, Green for the states that contribute more to our federal tax revenue than they take, and Red (the color of deficits) for the states that take more than they give. Here’s a hint: most of the Red states on the political map would stay Red on the fiscal one. This was an issue that came up during the 2008 campaign, but it disappeared all too soon. But if we are not in this together, why pretend that we are?

Which leads me to my first three Articles of Un-Confederation for the TEA crowd:

Article I – States only get what they put in.

After all, this is a meritocracy now, not a ‘socialist’ country. No more earmarks, pork projects, no more anything that would allow a state to get one more dime in federal projects than it contributed. No federal highways to underserved areas, no rural electrification, no rail subsidies, no mass transit, no airport construction. That’s not all. No farm subsidies for agricultural states. No bailing for flooded states, No barriers or levees for oil-soaked coastline states.

SS a.

More bad news. If you decide to retire to Florida, that’s your right in a free country, but you become a citizen of Florida, and the payouts from national programs like Social Security, which come from current tax revenues, will be capped for your state. You only get what your fellow Floridians (mostly retirees, costumed characters, undocumented immigrants, and Rush Limbaugh) manage to put in.

Article II – States get to count undocumented immigrants as three-fifths of a person for population

(Seriously, no human being should ever be counted as three-fifths of a person just to respect economic or political interests, and of course the greatest country in the world, which should never apologize to anyone for anything, certainly would never sanction such a thing, but we’re just imagining here). So, if you live in a state whose economy currently depends on businesses importing undocumented workers, exploiting them, then unleashing the law on them, congratulations! You will have more members of Congress. The Southern states can restore their old states-rights economy and fly state flags proudly (Stars and Bars optional). Hint: If your isolated economies flourish, people will swarm to your state. If you end up with a surplus of residents, maybe you could sell them to other states for credits, like Cap and Trade. (Can we sell people? Not sure if that issue has ever been decided. I’ll check Wikipedia.)

Article III – No FEDERAL foreign aid, ever. It must be voted state-by-state.

Foreign Aid is always the first thing politicians mention when they talk about cutting government spending, even though it is the smallest category in our budget, and may yield the most value of any money we spend internationally. No aid to Israel. No NATO troops. No AIDS relief, let it spread. No famine relief, let them die. No building of third-world economies to help avert wars or slavery. No medical care to save children. No tsunami relief, let them drown (we do it for our own people, foreigners shouldn’t expect any different). If we are not locked together with each other, we certainly shouldn’t be looking for common interests with other countries, or helping them. So what if we will only save less than 1% of all federal discretionary spending? We’ll rebate that small amount of money proportionately to the states. (Uh red states, bad news, no rebate. You save nothing).

Maybe “In God We Trust” is not as important as “In Each Other, We Trust”

The National Lampoon once summed it up nicely by posing this question: “All of the states have entirely different shapes, yet they fit together PERFECTLY – Proof of a Higher Power?”

Maybe a higher power did intend us to look out for each other. Maybe a higher power did intend for us to stay connected. By higher power, I mean the intellect and wisdom of the Founding Fathers. I think that’s what they had in mind when they aimed for ‘a more perfect union.’ Obscure Latin phrases like E Pluribus Unum may not work anymore. This is America. When enunciating the basic premise of our nationhood, speak English: From many, one. Anybody who has a problem with that, I’m sure secession will work out as well as it did last time.

Hail the Return of COP-Ed

Hail the Return of COP-Ed

I had taken an extended break from this blog because I felt that my sense of personal integrity demanded it (also, I got lazy, but let’s not digress from my loftier explanation). I felt that I couldn’t write about the need for fair and respectful dialogue on issues if I couldn’t achieve it myself. And this past few months, I felt that I really couldn’t write about the need to elevate our discourse and still meet the standard that I encouraged others to meet, when I knew I would only be writing through clenched teeth. Truth is, I have been angry, disappointed, and close to falling into complete, paint-it-black cynicism about the political debate over heath care insurance reform (HCIR) and other topics. I have started dozens of posts, only to be embarrassed by the venom, the disparaging tone, the vicious, judgmental edge that I found in my own words. I left them all in draft form until I could control my own outlook and until I could see some solid evidence that the quality of reason even counted anymore.

I am now happy to report that I have reached a new plateau of enlightenment, restraint, and inner peace, and that recently I have found that the level of factual information, mutual respect, and appreciation for civility and reason in public discourse has improved so much, has reached such heights,  that I can return to my regular writing without fear of tempting despair.

Just kidding. It’s worse than I have ever seen it. I just gave up hope that it will get better, or that I will. And as for my personal integrity about praising one type of discussion and actually doing another, well, it’s easy. I just lowered my standards. So I’m blogging again.

A Splash of Hope

I will mention one hopeful note before I descend into the chewy meat of this post: I have recently become a fan on Facebook of a new group called the Coffee Party. Whether they can sustain it or not, they appear to be dedicated to some of the same things I care most about in a political debate: civility, fairness, honesty, and respect. They drink coffee, not Kool-Aid. They may be our last hope. I wish them well and I invite everyone to check them out, join them, and make them prove that they are for real.

http://coffeepartyusa.com

I count on my friends to send me the irritating grains of sand that inspire the glimmering pearls that are my posts. Today, one of my favorite center-right button-pushers sent me an op-ed from today’s Washington Post (full text below). It appeals to the reader’s sense of fairness. The author asks us to consider a “more modest, middle-ground approach” to the healthcare proposals before Congress. And that’s where he lost me. If the last few months have demonstrated anything, it is that some people only care about redefining the middle to their advantage. Every time you approach it, it moves. It’s one thing to offer a prayer and stick it in the Wailing Wall. It’s another to expect the Wall to follow you down the street and have a cup of coffee while you discuss your concerns. The people I will call Regressives [(C) 2010 by me. Stuff it, Glenn Beck] in this debate over HCIR are a brick wall, unresponsive and unmoving, unless you get close. They will take any concession and pretend it never happened. They just ask you to give up more. If you get close enough to call them on their intransigence, then the brick wall becomes amazingly agile. They run away. Want a spirit of compromise? Unlike your chances with the Wailing Wall, you don’t even have a prayer.

Off to a Bad Start

He contradicts himself in the first two paragraphs. He praises a “bipartisan framework” that was provided more than a year ago and says this proposal manages to “contain significant elements of their suggestions,” yet he calls it a  ”partisan, controversial law.”  People who hate government also hate for it to accomplish anything. That’s why he only foresees two possible outcomes, both of which involve nothing being accomplished by government. Funny, even while pretending to logic and a commitment to progress, he still can’t resist proposing the restriction of Medicare as one solution. What a novel way to address the crisis of uninsured citizens – restrict the plan we DO have and exclude more people!

I Tried, I Really Tried. Then, God Help Me, I Complimented the Klan

If you know me, you know I am a person who respects well-presented, sincere points of view. Doesn’t apply here. He’s full of crap, he knows it, and so is everyone else with an R next to their name who did nothing to advance a single healthcare insurance reform idea in the last decade or more. Are we supposed to worry that Washington will become more polarized than it is NOW? It apparently does “have to happen this way” if it’s going to happen at all. The only thing Regressives want is failure for any reform movement, and they will keep moving the goal posts, changing the subject, waving red herrings like tort reform (.5%, that’s Point. Five. Percent. of the issue), and exploiting fears to make it fail AGAINST the wishes of the majority of the people (they lie about polls too). I especially enjoy seeing Regressives raise false alarms and pose as defenders of Social Security and Medicare, programs they have loathed and attacked since day one. I consider it as shameless as … well, I was going to use the analogy of the Klan raising alarms about risking the progress we’ve made in civil rights, but I think that would be unfair to the Klan. They have a more advanced sense of shame than that, and would never hide behind something they despise.

Spin Three Times Before You Approach the Brick Wall

Here’s another example of how the basic issues get re-framed by people who really don’t want any progress. Today I listened to a discussion on a conservative talk radio station about health care. One question was: “will Congress pledge to accept the same health care program that they are forcing on the American people?” The question should be the other way around: “will they extend the same program to the American people that they enjoy in Congress?” Failing that, the answer should have been “Since 98% of the currently insured population will keep their current coverage, then YES, Congress will accept the same situation that they are offering to the public.”

“Oh, and Forget What I Was Saying Before”

After a year of deceptive deflection like “we don’t need universal healthcare insurance, because anyone can just go to an emergency room and be treated,” Tim Pawlenty (R) proposes that we could reduce costs by allowing emergency rooms to deny treatment. Go ahead, chase that brick wall as it runs down the street, you’ll never catch it, much less climb it.

The Only Way Forward is Forward

Congress should pass the reconciled bill as-is and stop falling for stalling tactics like “starting over with a clean sheet of paper.” They should just progress around Regressives like Tim Pawlenty and the author of this Washington Post op-ed. After this bill is signed, they should introduce a new bill that creates a genuine public option and/or extends Medicare. Go back and read my earlier posts if you want to know why I think America should provide the opportunity for health care to its citizens.

Forget November

There SHOULD be, and will be, “fireworks in November” as the op-ed author predicts, but they will be exploding on everyone who voted against reform. Social Security and Medicare may be old news, and they can get away with pretending that they have always been supporters. But November is close enough for everyone to remember who stood with the health insurers and greed, and who stood for their constituents and fairness. Maybe I’m wrong about people’s memories. The parade of Regressives who not only condemned the stimulus bill, but portrayed it as a poison to our very way of life, then stood proudly in photo ops next to big checks for their districts, tells me I might be giving the electorate too much credit. Maybe I’m not giving enough credit to Regressives. Maybe they CAN fool all the people all the time. [Cynicism creeps back in.]

Listen to the Experts

And if this op-ed author was actually part of the ‘lie about the true costs, fire the guy who told the truth, use your majority and ram it down their throats late at night with no real debate or disclosure, using reconciliation, supporting high costs for all, exploding the deficit, guarantee no competition and high profits for the drug companies travesty*” that was the Bush prescription drug program (*ED NOTE: I believe that was the actual full name of the legislation), then he should at least have the sense of shame to be silent on this topic, instead of parading his complicity in past disasters as expertise.

From the Washington Post:

It’s not too late for bipartisan health reform

By Tom Scully

Wednesday, March 17, 2010; A21

We are on the verge of an overheated political meltdown over health care

that will result in either a partisan, controversial law that polarizes

Washington for years or nothing passing, which would spook Congress into

another decade of inactivity. It does not have to happen this way.

President Obama and Congress can still pass lasting health reform this

year. Former Senate leaders Tom Daschle, George Mitchell, Bob Dole and

Howard Baker provided a bipartisan framework more than a year ago. The

proposals that passed the House and Senate contain significant elements of

their suggestions.

Unfortunately, emboldened by their majority, Democrats have moved away from

the middle. They overreached because they could. They may close their eyes

and leap — passing an expensive, controversial bill by a party-line vote

in the midst of a rough economy and huge budget deficits — but they would

almost certainly regret it in November.

So what could Democrats do to get real policy reform, with a level of

bipartisan support that would give them cover? Make a bold move to the

middle. For starters:

– Retain the exchange structure. Organizing local markets for individuals

and small businesses is long overdue and is the core of insurance reform.

– Reform the tax subsidies for health care. This actually bends the “cost

curve” and is also the source of financing for the uninsured. It means we

must strengthen, not weaken, the “Cadillac tax” or tax cap. The

Congressional Budget Office and credible economists have said so for

decades. Every American can have a “basic” plan subsidized through the tax

code — and if you want a plush plan you can buy it — but not with

additional tax subsidies. This rational policy frees up billions for

covering the uninsured. Sens. Max Baucus, Kent Conrad and others have

pushed this, but the policy has been attacked by unions (which enjoy the

plush coverage that encourages overconsumption) and watered down to

irrelevancy.

– Drop the Medicare increases in the hospital insurance tax. The Senate

bill raises the hospital insurance tax (the 1.45 percent withheld from

every employee and employer per paycheck) by 0.9 percentage point on every

employee making more than $200,000 a year and another 0.9 percentage point

on employers. Instead of a broad-based social insurance model for Medicare,

it converts Medicare’s trust fund to a source for another graduated income

tax. Few businesses or employees know this bad policy is there. When they

discover a new 1.8 percentage point income tax increase, they will be very

angry.

– Reduce the bill’s scope of spending to about $600 billion over 10 years.

The Medicaid expansions in the Senate and House bills are little understood

and larger than necessary. Tax credits for the uninsured can be reduced in

scope and income level to make the program more sustainable as it gets

started.

– Tie the spending increases to budget targets and triggers. It is

critical to allow spending for new subsidies or Medicaid expansions to take

place only in years when the CBO projects the deficit to be less than 3

percent of gross domestic product. If we want health coverage for all

Americans, it has to be paid for. The tough choices needed to reduce this

massive gap: Cut spending and/or raise taxes. Raise the Medicare retirement

age as we did with Social Security. This year’s $1.6 trillion deficit is

approaching 11 percent of GDP. That’s unsustainable. We can’t expand health

subsidies until we get the deficit under control.

So what would be the result of this moderate policy? President Obama passes

the structure for reform: exchanges with a mechanism to fund expanded

coverage as the deficit is tamed. Republicans and conservative Democrats

get a smaller bill and the fiscal restraints they seek in a troubled

economy. The system would go on virtual auto-pilot should the economy

improve and deficits shrink.

It would not be enough for many Democrats and would be far more than most

Republicans could accept. But a majority of Americans would support a more

modest, middle-ground approach. And hewing to the middle would garner some

Republican support and generate the mainstream base needed to sustain a

radical shift in social policy.

This could even be done without “starting over.” The House could pass the

Senate bill and then significantly reduce its scope as described above

through a supplemental bill. Surely this approach would get much broader

support in the House and Senate than what Democratic leaders are hoping to

cram through — and, far from generating the fireworks that many predict

for November, it would create a framework for long-term bipartisan reform.

The writer was administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid

Services from 2001 to 2004. He previously served in the White House under

President George H.W. Bush.

Seven Days In Maybe…

Seven Days in May was a very good novel and a powerful movie in its time. Burt Lancaster is a general who feels it is his patriotic duty to seize the government from the elected President. Kirk Douglas is the Colonel who discovers the plot and feels it is his patriotic duty to defend the Constitution and stop him. A classic duel between strong convictions, broad shoulders, piercing stares and jutting chins. Our way of life was at stake. Between that book, Fail Safe, and the Cuban missile crisis, I didn’t sleep much as a kid.

Maybe I’m paranoid. Maybe I’m a hysterical alarmist. Maybe I’m a conspiracy theorist. Or maybe I am just a worried American citizen who listens to the rhetoric and reasoning from the entire range of the political spectrum and is worried about what I am hearing. I enjoy substantive debate, humorous debate, even (especially) in-your-face satire and ridicule. I love political debate that makes me laugh, regardless of the target. But the inflammatory rhetoric I am hearing is scaring me. There are dangerous people out there who are hyping the notion that violence is necessary, secession is an option, and a military coup might be a reasonable (and welcome) event. There are lots more people who are cheering them. They are not part of a “lunatic fringe.” They are not joking, and I am not laughing. Maybe you shouldn’t be either.

I see the signs that say “WE CAME UNARMED [This Time]” and I’m not laughing.

I see a quiz on Facebook asking if the President should be assassinated, and I’m not laughing.

I hear this lecture from the Take Back America conference last week and I’m not laughing.

• “If we had our guns, we would have fought a bloody battle. So, keep your guns, and buy more guns, and buy ammunition. [...] Take back America. Don’t let them take the country into Socialism. And I refer again, Hitler’s party was National Socialism. [...] And that’s what we are having here right now, which is bordering on Marxism.”

At least three Republican members of Congress and Mike Huckabee spoke at that conference. Where was their condemnation of that violent message? Every one of them was sworn into office by taking an oath to uphold the Constitution. You remember the Constitution? the document that true conservatives want upheld to the letter? The Constitution that specifies the rule of law, the process for electing our leaders, and the penalties for treason?

I have lived through the assassination of our President once. I don’t want to have to live through another one because responsible people did not speak out and stop insane talk. Or because they didn’t take the threat seriously. Or worse, because they were busy laughing. I am asking friends and acquaintances of every political leaning to help me stop this insanity. I am asking everyone to declare their independence from the vocal, dangerous minority that stays in business by asking us to forget that we are all citizens who share a love of America. I am asking everyone to distance themselves from the voices of pure hate, and let them know where you draw the line.

And here are some truths to keep in mind as you try and filter the poison out of the discourse, because some truths, apparently, are not self-evident.

SECESSION IS TREASON.

Hundreds of thousands of brave men died to hold this country together. If the governor of Texas (or anybody else) suggests that secession isn’t out of the question, ask them why they hate their country. Ask them if they are traitors.

ASSASSINATION IS TREASON.

Four people have killed US Presidents. Many others have tried. None of them were heroes. None of them were patriots. They were traitors. If someone in your presence makes a joke or slyly suggests that assassination of the President wouldn’t be a bad thing, let them know that you’re not laughing. If they make an actual threat, report it to the Secret Service. Ask them why they hate their country and the electoral process in the Constitution. Ask them if they are traitors.

A MILITARY COUP IS TREASON

The link is no longer working, so I believe that Newsmax has pulled it from their site, but yesterday they published an article that ‘wonders’ if a military coup is coming. Read the whole article (below) and see if you can find any suggestion that it would be a bad thing. In fact, see if you can find a paragraph that doesn’t suggest that it may actually be a necessary, patriotic thing. I consider that ‘giving aid and comfort to the enemy.’ The response among certain sites around the web suggest that Seven Days in May had the wrong ending. Feel free to write the author at Newsmax and ask him why he hates his country and the Constitution. Ask him if he’s a traitor.

I am asking everyone to listen carefully to what’s being said, and to do their part to counteract the poisonous notions that create real dangers for our President and our country. This is not a question of free speech. In my America, you can believe what you want and say what you want. But if someone states that secession, assassination, or a military coup may be needed, they are talking treason.

And if you say nothing, or let them think it’s funny, or think that those are reasonable, patriotic ideas, then maybe you are the traitor! J’accuse! (How’s that for in-your-face, inflammatory rhetoric?)

OK, maybe not. Just read the article and see what got me so worked up.

9/29/09 11:37 PM

Obama Risks a Domestic Military ‘Intervention’

Page 1 of 2

http://www.newsmax.com/john_perry/obama_military_coup/2009/09/29/266012.html

John L. Perry

Obama Risks a Domestic Military ‘Intervention’

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:35 AM

By: John L. Perry

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the

“Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened

doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through

military eyes:

Officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike enlisted

personnel, they do not swear to “obey the orders of the president of the United States.”

Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized

.

They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.

They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender

governments.

They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.

They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America’s troop strength is allowed to sag.

They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.

They can see the nation’s safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?

Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear bombs

falls into the hands of militant Islam?

Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran’s nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes,

destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?

What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, “I’m

not interested in victory”) that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they

cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?

Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble

the national survival on such political whims?

Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America’s

military leadership is lost in a fool’s fog.

Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control

him, and work out the national equivalent of a “family intervention,” with some form of limited, shared

responsibility?

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do

the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would

replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the

president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a

Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable

or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say,

“We can always worry about that later.”

In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal

responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.

John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer who served on White House staffs of two

presidents, is a regular columnist for Newsmax.com. Read John Perry’s columns here.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Your Money or Their Life.

Following my lead (as they often do), The New York Times today weighed on on the issue of evaluating the true cost of an extreme public policy. In this case, it was the death penalty – one of our classic, no-common-ground, political footballs.

Now, I don’t believe in the death penalty. That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe society has the right to take a life for the greater good. It certainly does, and we re-affrm that right when we arm our cops and our military. If they believe a life is in immediate danger or a serious crime is in progress, they must act with force and sometimes with lethal force. We give permission, as a society, to take a life. I just don’t think, in most capital cases, that we should. The deterrence factor of lethal force works best in urgent and immediate situations (“Stop or I’ll shoot” makes them either stop or run faster; actually shooting has the same effect). But once we have established control of a threat (and there is no greater control than a maximum security prison), it demeans us as a society to take a life and I don’t think it is worth the baggage, much less the cost in hard tax dollars. On the other hand, I have about three million things on my to-do list before you’ll find me standing outside a prison in a candlelight vigil for a murderer. Sorry, Mumia, but you have enough misguided people in your corner. My candle will be lit for your victims.

Maybe as long as we have the death penalty we should use it, but with the greatest possible restraint. After all, we budget state spending limits for libraries, for unemployment compensation, for election funding – why not for the most expensive (per capita) element of our criminal justice system? If termination is that expensive, maybe each state should have a “term” limit. Then there would be some competition for the most deserving recipient of the needle, instead of the current ‘pass/fail’ test that involves the quality of your lawyer, your bank account, and yes, your race and the race of your victim. I watched 60 Minutes this week so I would start with Bernie Madoff. We’ll happily execute an armed robber who grabs a handful of cash and kills a store clerk and plunges ONE person’s family, friends, and community into grief. Madoff stole billions and ruined thousands of lives. He should go to the head of the line. He’s used to stepping over others to reach the top.

Maybe the death penalty truly can be a deterrent, but I don’t believe it deters people who have dedicated their lives to violence. Let’s use it where it will do some good. Scare all those prospective felons in white collars. Seize their assets while they are alive and let them watch their families turned out into the streets. Let Bernie’s victims vote for execution on an American Idol basis. I’m sure he made enough friends vs. enemies in his lifetime to win that vote, right? Better yet, tell him that he won and his life will be spared, then tell him that it appears that there was some fraudulent activity in the accounting, the votes he was counting on aren’t there, and he’ll have to die anyway. Let’s start reserving the scarce use of the death penalty for the criminals who have hurt the most people. What kind of message does 150 years in prison send to a 70-year old schemer? But thinking about having only 150 days to live may give the next Bernie Madoff or Ken Lay pause before they choose to take the money and do the harm. (Of course we can’t dig up Ken Lay and execute him, but we should at least take posession of the gravesite for a public restroom. It could become a vacation destination for Enron victims.)

Since most white-collar criminals are pigment-challenged as well as ethics-challenged, we’ll call our preferential program “Affirmative Action for the Greedy White Guy” A nice way to play catch-up for the racial disparity in our current executions.

We need some kind of reform because that pesky Eighth Amendment keeps the death penalty from being any fun. For example, I think that someone who terrorizes society by poisoning Tylenol or sending anthrax through the mail should spend anywhere from one to three years in suspense while they are forced to eat every meal, never knowing if it will be their last (“Hey Jack, did your mashed potatoes taste a little ‘off’ today?”). DC Sniper? Easy justice. (“Enjoy your time in the exercise yard. Stay low. Today might be the day”). Each warden could be creative, but you get the idea.

OK, none of that will happen, but if the Times has a valid point, then we need to have a less expensive and more satisfying way to permanently shelve our worst citizens. Here’s my suggestion: Virtual Death Penalty. A sentence of exile that includes absolute isolation and complete removal from society, with all the finality of the death penalty except for the actual cessation of breathing. No outside contact. No reason for further appeals to escape the death penalty. The exiled will have the same chance to interact with others, speak to friends, see family, hear good news, or share their dreams that their victims have – zero. Their families can visit a grave with a name on it, but no one will never know when a vicious killer actually passes, because he was as good as dead when he went into exile. If DNA or other evidence proves innocence, a judge can still open sealed records, locate someone, and set them free (something we can’t do with the actual death penalty). Perhaps have the Red Cross or Amnesty International monitor inmates by number only. Assisted suicide on request might be an option. Then put a new law on the books. Anyone who assists someone in Virtual Death by passing a message or breaching the rules in any way gets to join them. I’m guessing that society can get the satisfaction that is (falsely) promised by executions and the safety promised by life without parole, for a lot less money.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m all in favor of justice but I don’t think having a death penalty delivers on that promise cost-effectively, Maybe a Virtual Death Penalty will be cheaper. Plus, our hands will be cleaner and our souls will be lighter.

Six-gun of one, half a dozen of the other

As the world tries to respond to Iran’s growing nuclear activity, I am trying to decipher the logical paradox that faces the right-wing viewpoint. If a community is safer when everyone is freely armed, why wouldn’t the world be safer when every nation has nuclear weapons? Do sovereign nations have the same rights as private citizens in the US? I don’t advocate Iran having nuclear weapons and I support the rights of private citizens to own guns, so I am caught in the question myself. It’s just a logical break that I am trying to resolve.

How many dollars in a principle?

Principles sometimes outweigh politeness

I have so many thoughts about the decline of civility in our political discourse and I have shared some of them in earlier posts. The shouted accusation (“You lie!”) by Rep. Joe Wilson during President Obama’s address to Congress gave me lots more to think (and write) about but, unfortunately, that will have to wait. I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he was driven by principles and just had a lapse of judgment (although I prefer the Saturday Night Live version – that a bunch of Republicans agreed to do it in unison, then changed their minds while he was in the rest room but nobody told Joe).

This post is about the competing principles of fiscal conservatism and political conservatism, or simply – are we always willing to pay for what we believe in? This is an argument that often goes against liberals, who are portrayed as lacking a fiscal restraint gene. But the last eight years have proven that drunken-sailor spending of other people’s money is the original sin of both parties. As always, the more important consideration is what they spend it on. That is why I found myself more interested in the underlying anger in Rep. Wilson’s challenge than I was in the relative rudeness of his outburst. What would so enrage him that he would become the person that his wife called “that nut” who yelled at the President? Well, it wasn’t the issue of health care. It was the notion that some of the benefits of the proposed bill might be shared with illegal immigrants. That is what offended his principles and mattered much more to him than the dignity of the moment.

Alas, principles are not the same as convictions

Let me share a humbling moment by way of example: I was talking to an Assistant District Attorney once about an armed robbery in which a family member was a victim. I asked about getting DNA from the thug’s hoodie, which was left at the scene. She said “You’ve been watching too much Law & Order.” She explained that the city wouldn’t pay for DNA tests in a case like this. At first I was angry because, after all, there were principles at stake – the rule of law and the right of my nephew to live life un-terrorized. But, having spent some time working in the criminal justice system, I was already familiar with the notion that my personal convictions about right vs. wrong did not always result in a conviction in a court of law. Deals get made. Practicality plays a role. Sure, justice may have been served better with that expense, but that would have meant a bigger budget and more tax dollars spent. And we all know what happens to politicians who raise taxes, even to pay for important things. Americans often vote with their wallets. We are, after all, a cynical and practical people. We like to know the cost of everything and sometimes we care about the value as well.

How much if we had just pulled down the statue, laughed, and left?

What do you suppose the Iraq war is now projected to cost us in tax dollars? Did it ever reach the $500 Billion figure (considered very high at the time) that was ridiculed during the 2004 election? The Bush administration (also considered high at the time, on something) suggested it would cost almost nothing since it would pay for itself with oil revenue. FYI, the current Congressional Budget Office estimate is $2.75 Trillion.

Extreme principles can create expensive policies, but sometimes we need to be reminded. For example, we were principled enough to see the damage done by alcohol in our culture and we prohibited it. Then we were practical enough to say “Yikes! Bad, bad idea.” and repeal that law when the cost of enforcement became an extreme burden to our wallets and our society. Also, people really wanted to drink. Both decisions seemed practical at the time but our mistakes led us to a more reasonable approach in subsequent laws. We struck a balance and retreated to a more practical and proven approach: let it be legal but tax the hell out of it. (Unfortunately, there is still no practical rationale for the Pennsylvania State Store and Liquor Control Board system.)

“A cynic knows the cost of everything…”

So, if those who believed that we were morally compelled to invade Iraq, then morally compelled to build a democracy there, had been told that the bill would be $2.75 Trillion, would they have said “Fine, it’s worth it. Raise my taxes and my grandchildren’s taxes to pay for it” and then put their money where their mouth was?

So, being practical, how much will a revised health care system with close-to-universal coverage and a public option cost? I don’t know yet. No one really does but it will be a factor in what we end up choosing. The Congressional Budget Office actually projects the cost of a reform bill WITH a public option (the Kennedy plan) to cost about $260 Billion less than having no public option (the Baucus plan). Tough call. If fiscal conservatism is your ruling ideology, do you vote for the more expensive option just to restrict government? Or is preserving the ‘free market’ more important to you than the cost to taxpayers?

A hypothetical: if the absolute position of political conservatives – that abortion is murder – was declared law and enforced, it might cost us trillions of dollars over the next ten years. Would fiscal conservatives support a doubling of all taxes to pay for the prosecutions (and, in many states, capital trials and executions) for all parents and doctors who break that law and become murderers? Or will they be soft on crime?

“…and the value of (doing) nothing

So, back to Joe Wilson and his moment of rage. The principle that illegal immigrants should not have access to government services was so compelling that we made it illegal in 2005.  The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform looked at six states and found that enforcement cost $8 million dollars in taxpayer money and yielded eight verified violators. Personally, I wouldn’t care if it yielded 80, or 800, but it yielded eight, at a cost of a million dollars apiece. Now THAT’S putting your money where your principles are. The current laws (passed under Reagan) already mandate treatment at emergency rooms regardless of status or ability to pay so that doesn’t figure into the cost of a new bill,  Even if we could save a few tax dollars by turning away every sick child who didn’t have a visa, I imagine that the cost of a minimal insurance plan spread over millions of taxpayers like me would be more practical than spending a million dollars to catch each violator. But they are still breaking the law and something must be done. I suppose we could pay the cost of prosecution and just put all illegal immigrants in jail.

Jail, by the way, is one place where health care at taxpayers’ expense is guaranteed. There are about 12 million illegal immigrants in this country (according to fiscal and political conservatives like Joe Wilson who really worry about such things) and most of them are taxpayers. Surprised? I was too: http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1424.html.  Joe’s principles will not allow them to participate in ‘our’ health care. Will political conservatives force us to agree? Will fiscal conservatives be willing to pay the bill for excluding them? What will rule for Joe Wilson, practicality or ideology? And which ideology?

The Dogs of War

This will not be about my usual subject matter – the ways that we use and abuse political discourse – it is about the pinnacles and depths of human behavior. It is about judgment and being judgmental. It is about the limits of forgiveness and the definition of “unforgivable.”

But mostly it’s about Michael Vick joining the Philadelphia Eagles.

The reactions were swift and fierce. My nephew wondered whether it was the darkest day in Eagles history. My close friend and former season-ticket buddy wants the Eagles to go 0 – 16. My kids were stunned. I’ll bet A.J. Feeley was, too.

I told all my friends who called and emailed me the same thing – that I wanted to watch his press conference and the 60 Minutes interview before I sorted out my feelings and commented. (But I did post on Facebook, within hours of the news of her release, that the Eagles had just signed Squeaky Fromme.)

So now I have watched both the press conference and the interview and I have some thoughts. First of all, I vow to never have Jeffrey Lurie introduce me to a crowd. While wishing him success, he could barely mask his contempt and used every demeaning phrase except “scum of the earth” in describing Vick. Lurie’s thought process seemed to be “If he could convince character guys like Andy Reid, Tony Dungy, Roger Goodell, and the head of the Humane Society of his remorse, I should at least spend time with him and see if I could reach the same conclusion.” So he did, and came to the same conclusion. His decision was based on MV’s resolve to put the past behind him, to commit himself to a new team, to make amends for his past offenses, and his appropriate level of sincere self-hatred. It was also a vote of support for the judgment of his Coach. He satisfied himself that it was worth it to risk the anger of Eagles fans and give MV a chance. But he still sounded angry, as if he didn’t trust his own decision.

But if the heads of the NFL, the Eagles, and The Humane Society all agree that he is sincere in his remorse, who am I to say that he isn’t?

Well, I’m an opinionated Eagles fan (redundant, I know) and I’ll say it: He isn’t. He has no remorse over his actions. I listened to him and I looked in his eyes (his soul was not available). He mouths the words without hesitation and he obviously takes coaching well, but I don’t believe him. I think he is accepting this course of remorse and atonement being pushed by his mentors in the same way he accepted his friends telling him that dogfighting was OK. The moral compass that was absent then is still missing in action. I don’t think that he even has a clue WHY what he did was wrong, so he definitely doesn’t hate his actions or himself. What he hates are the repercussions. He hates what happened to him and he hates what it meant to his family and his career, and he genuinely regrets that it happened. By his own admission he is a lazy guy and it is certainly evident in his moral rigor. He’s faking remorse and he doesn’t even know what’s wrong with faking it. I also think he would pave his driveway with live puppies without a second thought if he believed there were no monetary, law enforcement, or career repercussions.

But if the heads of the NFL, the Eagles, and The Humane Society all agree that he merits a second chance, who am I to say he doesn’t?

Well, that’s a much more complex question. Second chances usually involve a willingness to allow a person the opportunity to atone, to make reparations, to try and balance the scale that measured his offenses with a more productive life, hopefully while making himself whole again. Does a despicable history, once renounced, prevent any further contribution to society? Of course not.  What if it’s not renounced, or is renounced without sincerity? Like I said, complex.

Perhaps, sometimes, second chances require a willingness to isolate the art, the gift, the contributions of a person from the actual person or their past. Is that possible? A tough question in a world where the Pope used be in the Hitler Youth. A few other examples:

What is unforgivable in politics?

West Virginia voters forgave Senator Robert Byrd for being a member of the Ku Klux Klan as a young man. The voters of Washington DC elected Marion Barry to City Council after he lost his job as Mayor and went to prison for smoking crack cocaine with a prostitute (what were they smoking?). How much hatred was spawned by George Wallace’s official sanction of racism, and how much pain, death, and injustice resulted from it? The voters of Alabama forgave George Wallace for a lifetime of racist hatred, once he repented, and re-elected him. The voters of Massachusetts forgave Ted Kennedy for reckless behavior that killed a woman and for his deplorable lack of honesty in the aftermath.

What is unforgivable in the arts?

My grandmother stopped watching the Dean Martin show when he divorced his wife Jeannie. But she loved Dean Martin and she eventually watched him again. She wouldn’t deprive herself of that voice forever over his personal life. Should we deprive ourselves of the poetry of Ezra Pound because he did broadcasts for fascists? Never let children watch The Wizard of Oz because Frank Baum was a racist? Never watch Braveheart again because Mel Gibson is an anti-Semitic a__hole when he’s drunk? Never again enjoy the songs of Michael Jackson because…well, you know.

What is unforgivable in the sciences?

We crowned all the achievements and sacrifices of the space program by placing a plaque on the moon that read “We come in peace for all mankind.” What a moment. Dr. Werner von Braun was instrumental in taking mankind into space, working for the United States. Von Braun lived long enough to see his work on the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs produce that moment for all of us. They made a movie about his inspiring life of science called “I Aim for the Stars.” Comedian Mort Sahl suggested adding the subtitle “But Sometimes I Hit London.” You see, von Braun used to work for a guy named Hitler, and as a young man he had designed the V2 rocket that terrorized (and greatly reduced) the civilian population of London during WWII. He even used slave labor to do it. He joined the SS. Those were his circumstances and he accepted them. But after WWII his mind was a valuable property, so the US stole him and put him to work. Should we have? Was giving him a second chance worth it?

This may be complex, but it’s not rocket science, so let’s eliminate the middleman. Suppose you stared at a watercolor in a gallery and you were moved by the splash of colors, the composition, the light on the architecture, the sincere passion to capture the beauty of nature. Then you notice the signature in the corner is “A. Hitler” Can you ever enjoy that watercolor again? (Hitler’s watercolors, by the way, are still being sold.) It would have to be the LSD trip of watercolor paintings to make you even imagine owning it and displaying it in your home, but could you still enjoy it on any level? Can you separate the art from the artist? Would you pay to see that watercolor in a museum if all the proceeds went to fight bigotry? Can you cheer for your team when they score on a halfback option if the halfback throwing the ball is a convicted criminal? Could you do it if it meant 1,000 animals were saved from abuse?

Back to current question – what is unforgivable in sports?

The rules are still complex. I watched a Make Tyson fight after he served his rape sentence, but I was glad to see him get beaten. I still laugh at Police Squad movies, even though OJ is in them, but I would never watch him on a broadcast because he has never admitted guilt or shown remorse. Bet on baseball and the fans forgive you but the league does not. Make a racist joke and you deserve a steep hill to climb. Throw a game and no one forgives you. Ever.

The Eagles often surprise me. They once hired a guy who was kicked off the Packers because he was stealing paychecks from teammates. Dick Vermeil once carried a burned-out third quarterback just to help keep him sober and find his way back. I have a decades-long history of cheering and cursing this team. It’s a love that goes back to the days when they were completely unloveable. My first training camp visits were in the 70s, when Mike McCormack called his players “dogs.”

I don’t think that there is any hypocrisy in bragging about a “character” organization and then hiring Vick. I am sure that Andy Reid has to truly believe in redemption and second chances in his family life, so It was probably part of his decision.

Bottom Line: Must forgiveness precede a second chance?

I don’t think so. It would be easy to condemn Vick for his past and never consider him again. I think that I can choose to postpone forgiveness for Michael Vick until he proves the sincerity of his remorse. But I don’t think he’ll ever prove that sincerity or achieve that forgiveness without a second chance. “he paid his debt to society” is a bogus argument. He served a sentence, but the dogs are still dead. It doesn’t mean he gets a fresh start with a clean slate. I don’t think his second chance to pay that debt needs to wait for our forgiveness. I think that the effort he makes in his second chance could help with that forgiveness.

I don’t believe him, but should I deny him the chance to prove his commitment to a changed life? Should I deny him the professional profile that will allow him to make amends on a greater scale? In the end, I may forgive him or I may not. In the meantime, I will cheer for the Eagles. For now, I will at least forgive the Eagles for hiring him. They believe that Vick will help the team. Play three-card Monte with him and put him in the backfield for three or four plays a game. The other team will lose a second or two figuring out our next move and in those precious seconds of distraction, we can make a big play and score. When we do, I will cheer. I own the joy of that celebration and I won’t allow it to be hijacked by having him on the team.

The Eagles decided that they won’t deny Michael Vick the chance to use his skills and make a contribution and possibly make himself whole in the process. I won’t deny him the chance to change my mind about him.

Shout Out To All My Shouters

“UP AGAINST THE WA-ALL! UP AGAINST THE WA-ALL!”

 

“THE WHOLE WORLD’S WATCHING! THE WHOLE WORLD’S WATCHING!”

 

“HEY, HEY, LBJ, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?!”

 

HER-BERT!, HER-BERT! HER-BERT! (Only fans of the original Star Trek will get that one.)

 

Shouting, instead of talking.

Shouting, intsead of listening.

 

Gosh, that brings me back. In the 60s and early 70s there were so many cool things to shout out when you didn’t want to hear the other side speak. And if you didn’t want those who were still forming an opinion to hear the other side speak. The obvious orchestration drove conservatives crazy and they cited it as proof that the demonstrations were illegitimate and Communist-inspired. Not letting someone have their say was downright Un-American, they said. “If you’re right, then what are you so afraid of?” they asked. Outside agitators, they claimed, bring their hidden agenda and their tactics to town and trample on the rights of the Silent Majority to learn about issues, be heard, and solve the problems.

 

One advantage of getting older is getting to see ironies not only in a present-day context, but in a historical one as well. Back then it was the political left that specialized in the shout-down to frustrate their opponents and prevent their ideas from being heard. Now the right has dusted off  that tactic and believe that it is still an effective tool to prevent unwanted analysis. 

 

To avoid the risk of an informed citizenry and to prevent any reasoned discourse on health care reform, the RNC has now organized disruptors and provided them with talking points approved by  the titans of the healthcare industry. They email tactics to disruption team leaders, such as (I paraphrase, but not much): “‘shout out comments before the speaker can even start their presentation, to prevent them from getting started on making their case’ and ‘place your fellow disruptors around the front half of the room, so they get keep the speaker off-balance’ and ‘make it appear that your support is spread throughout the crowd.’

 

Here’s a hint to the right-wing shouters: not only are the 50s over, so are the 60s. The majority of people affected by the health care crisis rally want to hear all the concerns of both sides. If they can only hear your shouting, they will probably just wonder, “What are you so afraid of? What is it you don’t want me to hear?” and resent you and tune you out. 

 

On second thought, keep up the good work.

“Two out of three ain’t bad.”

Sometimes it is. 

“Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”

Every American knows the phrase, even though some think it’s in the Constitution instead of the Declaration of Independence. It’s not a guarantee of those rights, just an acknowledgment that they exist. As advocates of Second Amendment rights are quick to point out, the second two don’t do you much good without the first one, so the priorities are obvious. And on that point, they’re certainly correct. There’s a similar mantra about the sequence of priorities for emergency health care: ABC – Airway, Breathing, Circulation. You won’t ever have the second two without securing the first one. More on emergency healthcare in a minute. First, a little more context on L, L, and POH:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”

Naming “their Creator” as the source of those rights created problems for people who believe in the separation of church and state (ironically, the author of that phrase, Thomas Jefferson, is the best voice among them). But given the times, and the case that we were trying to make to the British throne and the rest of the world, that’s a fine start. It certainly helps to underscore the self-evident and indelible nature of those rights. Unfortunately, the Creator doesn’t guarantee them either. It’s the rest of that sentence, often forgotten, that gets us down to real-world commitments and guarantees:

“…that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…”

See, I knew there was a role for government in our lives, besides designing the flags we wave. So we instituted a government, defined it with our Constitution, and charged the Supreme Court with keeping it real. Later, we decided that was too simple of an arrangement and came up with the notion of signing statements.
Back to the L, L, and POH mission. Here’s another familiar phrase that presents an interesting parallel:

“you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will…”

Every criminal, most cops*, and any Law & Order fan (any version) can recite them from memory. Those words are part of the Miranda warnings that must be read to any suspect being interrogated about a crime. Decades ago, in a different lifetime, I heard those words many times. They derailed many investigations and made it harder to get convictions, but it spoke to the higher principle that we did not deprive someone of their liberty easily. Imagine a country so sure of its commitment to liberty for that it would allow that to happen. Amazing.

Now, here’s an even more amazing concept tucked away in those Miranda warnings:

“You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost.“

Wait. Really? Even if I’m not a landowner? Even if I don’t make enough money to pay taxes? Even if I don’t have private legal insurance? Wow, what a nice thing to do for a poverty-stricken fellow citizen in a situation that could deprive them of their liberty. It’s almost as if we cared enough about that basic right to guarantee it for everybody by paying for it, if needed, out of the public funds. As if we were committed to a higher principle of collective good, and formed a government to make sure that no one was deprived of their unalienable right by the Crown, or a member of the privileged class, or your local law enforcement agency. More than 200 years later, we are still proving the revolutionary notion that noble ideals were not the exclusive domain of the Nobility.

Those words exist in our collective consciousness because the Supreme Court recognized that our Constitution, respecting the ideal of a God-given right to liberty, guarantees equal access to justice for all, regardless of their ability to pay.

Guess where this is going.

We also have a right to live. We shouldn’t be deprived of that right by an insurance company, a bureaucrat, our bank statement, or a shareholders report. Right now, any man, woman, or child who is uninsured or unable to pay might still be treated by a health care provider, but the cost of treating them (the ‘wealth,’ if you will) is redistributed among all premium payers. Like a tax on paying customers. The ‘tax’ pays for care of the uninsured, shareholder profits, and the CEO’s salary and bonus.

Now, If you think those uninsured people should die, the argument stops there. You win.

“But anyone can go to an Emergency Room and they will be treated.”

If you think the present system if fine and that someone who has access to an ER has the equivalent of health insurance, then I have to ask: why do you trust a profit-making private enterprise to collect and spend your ‘taxes’ more than you do the government? Why outsource this task from the entity that has it as the first priority in its mission statement?

“Because the government is inefficient.”

Forget the logical pretzel of saying that private firms can’t compete with an inefficient competitor, just answer this question: If a government-run option is a joke, why isn’t ‘big health’ laughing? Outside of our various legislatures, I have lots of reasons to have faith in government workers, starting with our armed forces and domestic protectors like police and firemen. I didn’t notice how having government workers in the theater of ops kept Blackwater out of business, or how all the cops in this country prevented a multi-billion dollar private security industry from thriving.

Take the US Postal Service. Please.

No, really. I didn’t notice that having a lower cost ‘public option’ that can deliver a letter cross-country in two days has put UPS, FedEx and DHL out of business. In fact, it put them IN business. The USPS set a standard that private companies had to compete with, and they did, by offering premium service at premium prices. But they keep their prices low enough that premium users don’t flock to the Post Office. The VA hasn’t put private hospitals out of business while making sure that even those who can’t afford care on a serviceperson’s salary get medical attention.

Even FEMA, which performed badly under bad management, better under good management, didn’t give Brownie a 20 million dollar bonus for coming in under budget while screwing over flood victims, or worse, give him the same amount in a severance package. If he ran Aetna, they might have.

A Final Caution

The final plan will need serious debate. To oppose health care reform, the Heritage Foundation cites research from a ‘nonpartisan’ think tank called the Lewin Group, which happens to be wholly owned by UnitedHealth, the largest health insurer in the industry. Here’s how honest UnitedHealth is – they just paid $400 million of their premium-payer’s dollars in fines to settle fraud charges and is passing on those costs to – wait for it – their premium payers. If you buy their plan, then there’s your ‘private tax’ dollars at work. Is that the type of high-integrity stewardship that should remain exclusively in charge of health care in this country?

“Private healthcare companies will go out of business.”

I would love to see a documented case of a private law firm put out of business by the existence of a Public Defenders office. Until I do, I won’t worry about knocking Aetna out of the competitive arena with a publicly-funded option for healthcare. If the law prohibits the rejection of applicants for pre-existing conditions (and who among us has no pre-existing conditions?), then the playing field will be level for private companies. If the law doesn’t prohibit that, then they can choose not to compete for those customers. If they lose them all to a publicly funded plan that assigns PEC customers to willing competitors, well, that whole notion of making choices and taking the consequences comes into play. Can’t wait to hear them justify that choice to their remaining shareholders.

I’ll take my chances with the impact of having a nonprofit, audited, publicly-funded option as a competitor. We the People defined a government, not a corporate charter. Our priority for that government is looking out for citizens, not shareholders. We look out for the right to liberty of even the least and lowest among us when they are arrested.

Bottom line question: Why shouldn’t our government give the same respect to the primary right of Life as it does to Liberty?

Truth or Consequences

The words below are not mine, but I thought they expressed my feelings well. You’ll probably see them quoted around the net a lot, especially if we lose a few more people to political violence. Whether these narrow, twisted minds are responding to what they are actually hearing, or to what they think they are hearing, in the words of the Bible, Koran, or talk radio, it is important to remember that the rest of us are not powerless against them. We all need to step up and be more responsible in our own speech, concentrating on truth and logic instead of name-calling counterattacks. And we need to pressure people with a pulpit or a microphone to be more responsible for the consequences of their reckless incitement to take violent action.

“In this country we cherish and guard the right of free speech. We know we love it when we put up with people saying things we absolutely deplore. And we must always be willing to defend their right to say things we deplore to the ultimate degree. But we hear so many loud and angry voices in America today whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other. They spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable. You ought to see—I’m sure you are now seeing the reports of some things that are regularly said over the airwaves in America today.

Well, people like that who want to share our freedoms must know that their bitter words can have consequences and that freedom has endured in this country for more than two centuries because it was coupled with an enormous sense of responsibility on the part of the American people.

If we are to have freedom to speak, freedom to assemble, and, yes, the freedom to bear arms, we must have responsibility as well. And to those of us who do not agree with the purveyors of hatred and division, with the promoters of paranoia, I remind you that we have freedom of speech, too. And we have responsibilities, too. And some of us have not discharged our responsibilities. It is time we all stood up and spoke against that kind of reckless speech and behavior.

If they insist on being irresponsible with our common liberties, then we must be all the more responsible with our liberties. When they talk of hatred, we must stand against them. When they talk of violence, we must stand against them. When they say things that are irresponsible, that may have egregious consequences, we must call them on it. The exercise of their freedom of speech makes our silence all the more unforgivable. So exercise yours, my fellow Americans. Our country, our future, our way of life is at stake.”

    - President Bill Clinton, shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing.